Peak Oil is You

Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)

Page added on April 17, 2020

The Limits of Clean Energy

Strong winds blow sand at a wind farm in the Coachella Valley on May 6, 2019 in Palm Springs, California. Photo by Mario Tama / Getty Images.

The conversation about climate change has been blazing ahead recently. Propelled by the school climate strikes and social movements like Extinction Rebellion, a number of governments have declared a climate emergency, and progressive political parties are making plans—at last—for a rapid transition to clean energy under the banner of the Green New Deal.

This is a welcome shift, and we need more of it. But a new problem is beginning to emerge that warrants our attention. Some proponents of the Green New Deal seem to believe that it will pave the way to a utopia of “green growth.” Once we trade dirty fossil fuels for clean energy, there’s no reason we can’t keep expanding the economy forever.

This narrative may seem reasonable enough at first glance, but there are good reasons to think twice about it. One of them has to do with clean energy itself.

The phrase “clean energy” normally conjures up happy, innocent images of warm sunshine and fresh wind. But while sunshine and wind is obviously clean, the infrastructure we need to capture it is not. Far from it. The transition to renewables is going to require a dramatic increase in the extraction of metals and rare-earth minerals, with real ecological and social costs.

We need a rapid transition to renewables, yes—but scientists warn that we can’t keep growing energy use at existing rates. No energy is innocent. The only truly clean energy is less energy.

In 2017, the World Bank released a little-noticed report that offered the first comprehensive look at this question. It models the increase in material extraction that would be required to build enough solar and wind utilities to produce an annual output of about 7 terawatts of electricity by 2050. That’s enough to power roughly half of the global economy. By doubling the World Bank figures, we can estimate what it will take to get all the way to zero emissions—and the results are staggering: 34 million metric tons of copper, 40 million tons of lead, 50 million tons of zinc, 162 million tons of aluminum, and no less than 4.8 billion tons of iron.

In some cases, the transition to renewables will require a massive increase over existing levels of extraction. For neodymium—an essential element in wind turbines—extraction will need to rise by nearly 35 percent over current levels. Higher-end estimates reported by the World Bank suggest it could double.

The same is true of silver, which is critical to solar panels. Silver extraction will go up 38 percent and perhaps as much as 105 percent. Demand for indium, also essential to solar technology, will more than triple and could end up skyrocketing by 920 percent.

And then there are all the batteries we’re going to need for power storage. To keep energy flowing when the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing will require enormous batteries at the grid level. This means 40 million tons of lithium—an eye-watering 2,700 percent increase over current levels of extraction.

That’s just for electricity. We also need to think about vehicles. This year, a group of leading British scientists submitted a letter to the U.K. Committee on Climate Change outlining their concerns about the ecological impact of electric cars. They agree, of course, that we need to end the sale and use of combustion engines. But they pointed out that unless consumption habits change, replacing the world’s projected fleet of 2 billion vehicles is going to require an explosive increase in mining: Global annual extraction of neodymium and dysprosium will go up by another 70 percent, annual extraction of copper will need to more than double, and cobalt will need to increase by a factor of almost four—all for the entire period from now to 2050.

The problem here is not that we’re going to run out of key minerals—although that may indeed become a concern. The real issue is that this will exacerbate an already existing crisis of overextraction. Mining has become one of the biggest single drivers of deforestation, ecosystem collapse, and biodiversity loss around the world. Ecologists estimate that even at present rates of global material use, we are overshooting sustainable levels by 82 percent.

Take silver, for instance. Mexico is home to the Peñasquito mine, one of the biggest silver mines in the world. Covering nearly 40 square miles, the operation is staggering in its scale: a sprawling open-pit complex ripped into the mountains, flanked by two waste dumps each a mile long, and a tailings dam full of toxic sludge held back by a wall that’s 7 miles around and as high as a 50-story skyscraper. This mine will produce 11,000 tons of silver in 10 years before its reserves, the biggest in the world, are gone.

To transition the global economy to renewables, we need to commission up to 130 more mines on the scale of Peñasquito. Just for silver.

Lithium is another ecological disaster. It takes 500,000 gallons of water to produce a single ton of lithium. Even at present levels of extraction this is causing problems. In the Andes, where most of the world’s lithium is located, mining companies are burning through the water tables and leaving farmers with nothing to irrigate their crops. Many have had no choice but to abandon their land altogether. Meanwhile, chemical leaks from lithium mines have poisoned rivers from Chile to Argentina, Nevada to Tibet, killing off whole freshwater ecosystems. The lithium boom has barely even started, and it’s already a crisis.

And all of this is just to power the existing global economy. Things become even more extreme when we start accounting for growth. As energy demand continues to rise, material extraction for renewables will become all the more aggressive—and the higher the growth rate, the worse it will get.

It’s important to keep in mind that most of the key materials for the energy transition are located in the global south. Parts of Latin America, Africa, and Asia will likely become the target of a new scramble for resources, and some countries may become victims of new forms of colonization. It happened in the 17th and 18th centuries with the hunt for gold and silver from South America. In the 19th century, it was land for cotton and sugar plantations in the Caribbean. In the 20th century, it was diamonds from South Africa, cobalt from Congo, and oil from the Middle East. It’s not difficult to imagine that the scramble for renewables might become similarly violent.

If we don’t take precautions, clean energy firms could become as destructive as fossil fuel companies—buying off politicians, trashing ecosystems, lobbying against environmental regulations, even assassinating community leaders who stand in their way.

Some hope that nuclear power will help us get around these problems—and surely it needs to be part of the mix. But nuclear comes with its own constraints. For one, it takes so long to get new power plants up and running that they can play only a small role in getting us to zero emissions by midcentury. And even in the longer term, nuclear can’t be scaled beyond about 1 terawatt. Absent a miraculous technological breakthrough, the vast majority of our energy will have to come from solar and wind.

None of this is to say that we shouldn’t pursue a rapid transition to renewable energy. We absolutely must and urgently. But if we’re after a greener, more sustainable economy, we need to disabuse ourselves of the fantasy that we can carry on growing energy demand at existing rates.

Of course, we know that poorer countries still need to increase their energy use in order to meet basic needs. But richer countries, fortunately, do not. In high-income nations, the transition to green energy needs to be accompanied by a planned reduction of aggregate energy use.

How might this be accomplished? Given that the majority of our energy is used to power the extraction and production of material goods, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change suggests that high-income nations reduce their material throughput—legislating longer product life spans and rights to repair, banning planned obsolescence and throwaway fashion, shifting from private cars to public transportation, while scaling down socially unnecessary industries and wasteful luxury consumption like the arms trade, SUVs, and McMansions.

Reducing energy demand not only enables a faster transition to renewables, but also ensures that the transition doesn’t trigger new waves of destruction. Any Green New Deal that hopes to be socially just and ecologically coherent needs to have these principles at its heart.

Foreign Policy

221 Comments on "The Limits of Clean Energy"

Abraham van Helsing on Fri, 17th Apr 2020 9:51 pm

Here the real link:

https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/09/06/the-path-to-clean-energy-will-be-very-dirty-climate-change-renewables/

Author:

http://www.lse.ac.uk/anthropology/archive/jason-hickel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Hickel

Jason Hickel: Brit, UK Labour party, US educated, writes for Guardian, al-Jazeera. Typical globalist. Born in Africa, white. Antropologist, not an engineer.

DT on Fri, 17th Apr 2020 10:03 pm

This article really sums up the fallacy of “renewable energy”. Industrial civilization as we live it is all based on the burning of fossil fuels. The idea that humans are transitioning to a green sustainable energy system without burning fossil fuels is a fairy tale. This is all being perpetuated by a rapacious system known as capitalism. A system based on endless growth with a small minority of people, less than .01% of the human race owning everything of value.

Abraham van Helsing on Fri, 17th Apr 2020 10:55 pm

“This article really sums up the fallacy of “renewable energy””

It doesn’t, learn to read:

“We need a rapid transition to renewables, yes“

His main point is: transition to nearly 100% renewable (+some nukes) yes, but not at the same level as we had with fossil.

I largely agree with that, although the problems he identifies with silver and neodymium don’t exist. I will address this article later today in a blog post.

He also makes the laymen’s mistake of identifying energy storage with lithium. In any serious models of a future 100% renewable energy base, batteries play a small role:

https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2017/09/16/blueprint-100-renewable-energy-base-for-germany/

The real storage is low-tech seasonal thermal heat and chemical storage, probably hydrogen or derivative like ammonia.

This article is pre-corona. I agree with the author that the cleanest form of energy use is not using energy at all.

We should use corona to NOT rebuild BAU, but use the economic cut-back to rebuild society along ecological lines. Flying should be reduced and private car ownership discouraged. The current obligatory “working from home” should be prolonged if substantial commuting can be avoided. Use IT and groupware to communicate; do hot travel.

Hydrogen can replace lithium batteries in a fuel cell van for personal autonomous transport. Fuel cells are expensive, but that is irrelevant if applied in a autonomous driving community vehicle that is constantly on the road, like this:

https://youtu.be/cxFRVkMYWOE

With a driver in the cities or autonomous on the highways, using every road as a virtual railwayline. That technology already exists.

DT on Fri, 17th Apr 2020 11:18 pm

Hydrogen has not replaced anything at industrial scale that could be called a transition today and for that matter for the near future. These vehicles do not exist on any consumer level useable scale. There are absolutely no plausible models that show a clean green renewable energy, industrial civilization at scale is possible. No where in this article does the author claim a 100% renewable, plus a few nukes, future for mankind. On the contrary the author points out just how implausible this would be by pointing out all of the mining required to even come close to keeping up with demand. Again a great article explaining the lie of “renewable energy” aka FF extenders.

Cloggie on Sat, 18th Apr 2020 4:03 am

“The real storage is low-tech seasonal thermal heat and chemical storage, probably hydrogen or derivative like ammonia.”

One of my personal favorites, Ecovat. These folks have just built an automated production line for concrete elements that constitute the “vat”:

https://www.ecovat.eu/nieuws/nieuwe-video-productieproces/

Support from the government party VVD for this company:

https://www.ecovat.eu/nieuws/vvd-kamerlid-harbers-bezoekt-ecovat/

As a reminder, this is Ecovat:

https://deepresource.wordpress.com/?s=ecovat

Corona-ravaged communities with large number of unemployed could start digging the required hole of ca. 70 m in diameter and 30 m deep themselves as a starter.

DT: “Again a great article explaining the lie of “renewable energy” aka FF extenders.”

Pretends to “live in the here and now”, but in reality is fighting tooth-and-nail against the possibility of a renewable energy transition, like most Anglos. Because they know they don’t have the strength to innovate themselves away from the fossil-climate predicament. Anglo=fossil. Planetary dominance=fossil.

Big shrug. Europeans should soldier on with their transition, that has the support of the vast majority of the population in Europe and nobody doubts it is going to work, although there are a few populists around who deny that there is a climate problem and are hysterical about the cost.

Whatever. The renewable energy transition is essentially local and that should please populists. I always tease online German AfD populists why they are so keen to defend “Arab oil” at the cost of a fine German Siemens wind turbine. Never get an answer.

DT: “Hydrogen has not replaced anything at industrial scale that could be called a transition today”

“Transition today” is an oxymoron. Transition = 30 years. The target date every transition proponent is talking about is 2050.

Most elements of the final transition already exist:

– wind turbines
– solar panels
– offshore installation vessels
– electrolyzers
– fuel cells
– solar collectors
– hydrogen trains are in operation
– battery car with a range of 500 km
– hydrogen ships

It all already exists, little needs to be invented. It all needs to be optimized, improved, prices lowered, production processes optimized and scaled, elements connected into one big functioning renewable energy system. A fantastic engineering task, like the moon-landing.

Cloggie on Sat, 18th Apr 2020 4:30 am

The renewable energy transition is a matter of all interested parties involved, not just the government, but also of households, corporations and organisations.

Dutch infrastructure ministry orders wind park for private use:

https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2020/04/18/dutch-ministry-orders-wind-park-for-private-use/

Cloggie on Sat, 18th Apr 2020 4:48 am

Norwegian and French companies to build ammonia plant based on green hydrogen in NW-Australia for energy storage purposes:

https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2020/04/18/yara-green-ammonia/

Swiss ABB and French hydrogen company to build large fuel cells for hydrogen ship propulsion:

https://renewablesnow.com/news/abb-hydrogene-de-france-to-make-fuel-cells-for-ships-694844/

But remember folks, it is all not going to work.

DT said so.

Abraham van Helsing on Sat, 18th Apr 2020 4:56 am

“Over 10 GW of renewables to vie in UK’s round 4 auction”

https://renewablesnow.com/news/over-10-gw-of-renewables-to-vie-in-uks-round-4-auction-695272/

Think the power equivalent of 5 standard nuclear power stations.

Oil giant Shell to reduce its own carbon footprint to 0 by 2050. Wants to focus on renewables, bio-fuels and hydrogen:

https://renewablesnow.com/news/shell-now-targets-net-zero-emissions-by-2050-or-sooner-695344/

Perhaps that DT will pick up the phone and warn Shell that they are on the wrong track, explaining the lie of “renewable energy” aka FF extenders.

That’ll teach them!

Davy on Sat, 18th Apr 2020 5:12 am

“The renewable energy transition is a matter of all interested parties involved, not just the government, but also of households, corporations and organisations.”

LOL, cloggo, you forgot economy with means. You forgot physics and reality.

Davy on Sat, 18th Apr 2020 5:14 am

“Oil giant Shell to reduce its own carbon footprint to 0 by 2050. Wants to focus on renewables, bio-fuels and hydrogen”

They probably will be out of business by then so maybe it is good for employee morale to have such fantasies. We see what it does for you. LMFAO

Davy on Sat, 18th Apr 2020 5:18 am

“But remember folks, it is all not going to work.”

It might work but the economics are not there like FAKE Greens like you envision. The global system is still relatively rich and can play around with these experiments. Turing them into cost effective reality requires many more ingredients. It is easy to speculate with fantasy a lot different to make a reality.

“DT said so.”

Did DT tell you he is JuanP too? LOL, I know you probably want to tell us DT is MOBster.

Davy on Sat, 18th Apr 2020 5:22 am

“Corona-ravaged communities with large number of unemployed could start digging the required hole of ca. 70 m in diameter and 30 m deep themselves as a starter.”

What a friggin joke. You are fantasizing about 1930, cloggo. People will die before they get in a ditch digging these days. I can just see you with your fragile un-worked skin in a ditch digging. After an hour and blisters I can see you whining. I do it occasionally and it sucks. Try again goofy.

Davy on Sat, 18th Apr 2020 5:26 am

“Hydrogen can replace lithium batteries in a fuel cell van for personal autonomous transport. Fuel cells are expensive, but that is irrelevant if applied in a autonomous driving community vehicle that is constantly on the road, like this”

More niche fantasies applied to the bigger picture. I am all for some niches to assist in the trip down but don’t blow spoke up my ass with this being widespread. Please spare me the autonomous driving crap too. Antius, laid bare your fantasies the other day explaining the problems with hydrogen.

Antius on Sat, 18th Apr 2020 6:30 am

“The real storage is low-tech seasonal thermal heat and chemical storage, probably hydrogen or derivative like ammonia.”

Yes. Except for the part about hydrogen derivatives. You lose too much exergy making things like ammonia or synthetic methane, for any of these things to be more than niche solutions. Gaseous hydrogen is efficient enough to be affordable in limited applications. Think gas-bag vehicles, high temperature industrial heat and gas turbines. Maybe hydrogen filled airships for long-distance passenger travel. For freight, wind powered ships, hydraulic capsule pipelines, railways and short-distance electric trucks.

Thermal energy storage is where the biggest potential lies. It is very cheap, uses basic materials like rock, sand, concrete and water and has high energy density compared to a lot of other more expensive alternatives. It actually doesn’t need to be inter seasonal, because most of your heat is needed in the winter when you have a lot of excess wind power available. But interseasonal storage at an affordable kWh cost is always a useful feature to have and will improve system reliability.

If you go back to the grid watch website and select ‘renewables’ you will get renewable energy generation for the UK on a daily, monthly and annual basis. The graph at first looks chaotic with lots of peaks and troughs. But if you draw a line at around one third of peak generating capacity, you will see that about half of all electricity generation (I.e. the area under the curve) is above that line and the other half is beneath it. The 50% of capacity beneath that line, is actually very dependable. There are only occasional troughs in generation. This is your baseload electricity, the electricity that is going to run things like computers, trains and industrial equipment. You are going to fill those troughs using open cycle gas turbines, burning a mixture of biogas, hydrogen and LNG. Biogas is generated at low levels continuously. You will be storing that and hydrogen in gasometers at atmospheric pressure. You only need to store about 24 hours worth, so you don’t need to compress the hydrogen. That is very important. For much longer lulls in baseload generation, your gas turbines will be burning LNG. But this will only be needed for perhaps a few hundred hours each year and the amount of LNG you need will be quite small. Most of the time, it will sit there in insulated storage tanks. That is your long-term storage.

The top 50% of renewable electricity generation includes all of the peaks above the line that you have drawn at 33% capacity. This electricity will be absorbed by grid connected storage heaters. These are water tanks that sit in peoples houses with heating elements in them. They are controlled by the grid operator and will store about 1 week worth of heating requirements for an average house.

Inter seasonal storage is not really needed, because solar power will produce more electricity in the summer, when wind power is weakest. But you do need about 1 week worth of energy storage in the form of heat and about 24 hours in the form of hydrogen and biogas. The LNG negates the need for anything more and you will rarely need it.
But it needs to be there for when you do need it.

In most European countries, you want to generate roughly two units of wind power for every unit of solar electricity. That ensures a relatively flat baseload generation profile throughout the year, with more peaks from wind power in the winter when you need more heat.

So there you have it. Most of your energy coming from a mixture of solar and wind with modest contributions from biogas and LNG. Storage in the form of hydrogen (short term), heat (medium term) and liquefied natural gas (long-term). A 95% renewable energy economy. We don’t really ever need to get to 100%, as there will always be some natural gas available. We just can’t afford to have it being the primary source of energy anymore. But sitting for months on end in huge insulated tanks and providing power on any occasional basis, it is sustainable for millennia to come.

I still think a future based upon fast reactors is a more affordable and more prosperous way to go. But a 95% renewable future is something that could be made to work.

DT on Sat, 18th Apr 2020 7:04 am

DT says, I am not JaunP. Cloggie Says,”Oil giant Shell to reduce its own carbon footprint to 0 by 2050. Wants to focus on renewables, bio-fuels and hydrogen:” Wants to and 0 by 2050. The key part of the sentence. None of it is happening now. All speculation. No “transition” at this time.

Cloggie on Sat, 18th Apr 2020 7:22 am

Cloggie Says,”Oil giant Shell to reduce its own carbon footprint to 0 by 2050. Wants to focus on renewables, bio-fuels and hydrogen:” Wants to and 0 by 2050. The key part of the sentence. None of it is happening now. All speculation. No “transition” at this time.

Really?

Shell is heavily involved in building giant Dutch offshore wind parks in the North Sea NOW:

https://de.reuters.com/article/shell-windfarm-netherlands/update-1-shell-participates-in-bid-for-dutch-offshore-wind-farm-idUKL5N1896Q7

“UPDATE 1-Shell participates in bid for Dutch offshore wind farm”

https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2020/02/shell-gasunie-and-groningen-join-forces-for-mega-wind-and-hydrogen-plant/

“Shell, Gasunie and Groningen join forces for mega wind and hydrogen plant”

https://www.upstreamonline.com/energy-transition/shell-s-giant-offshore-wind-to-hydrogen-plan-set-to-survive-covid-19-crisis-unscathed/2-1-787737

“Shell’s giant offshore wind-to-hydrogen plan set to survive Covid-19 crisis unscathed”

The three companies in late February unveiled plans for what’s claimed to be Europe’s biggest green hydrogen project in the Netherlands, powered by a 3-4 gigawatt offshore wind farm in the North Sea by 2030 that would be expanded to up to 10GW by 2040.

Shell would be mad NOT to be involved in the European renewable energy transition since in Europe all governments back transition, a giant leg-up for companies like Shell to get involved. Cash is not a problem whatsoever. There is the largest Norwegian state fund in the world (1 trillion), 400 billion Danish money, all pension funds in Europe have trouble finding interesting investment opportunities. And they are all flocking to renewable energy. All that NW-European governments need to do is dole out offshore regions and next they get offshore projects developed there in return for the developer to be allowed to bring these kWh’s onshore and sell them against market prices. Very calculable, very risk free, exactly what pension funds love.

Shell is a natural partner because they understand offshore, they understand pipelines, now for hydrogen.

DT on Sat, 18th Apr 2020 7:32 am

From wiki chart 2017, Solar generation 2% of world total, wind 4% biofuels (mostly burning wood) 2%, Hydro 16%= 24% total world electric production. This is only electricity production. Electricity is about 20% of all energy used world wide. The other 80% of energy comes from burning FF. As of 2017 less than 3% of total energy used world wide was from “renewables” aka fossil fuel extenders. 100% “Renewables” by 2050? ROFLMAO, Oh yea lets not forget those moon landings the ol’ we can do it human spirit thing. A total of six landings the last was in 1972. That was about 50 years ago. So comparing moon landings with 100% renewable energy future by 2050? (Nice comparison Cloggie) 0000000000000000000000000000% chance

DT on Sat, 18th Apr 2020 7:39 am

Where are the Hydro pipelines in use and for what? Nowhere and nothing. Shell is putting on a dog and pony show for you cloggie. And wind turbine have a life expectancy of about 25 years so by 2050 everything being built today in the way of wind turbine will have to be replaced. Think about it all of the so called renewable energy contraptions have to be replaced every 25 years.

Cloggie on Sat, 18th Apr 2020 7:43 am

So comparing moon landings with 100% renewable energy future by 2050? (Nice comparison Cloggie) 0000000000000000000000000000% chance

Who is talking about “the world”?! Most of the world are third world shit hole countries (Trump says so). F* the world.

I was talking about *** Europe-2050 ***

Yesterday the grid contracts were signed to finalize the preparations for next Dutch offshore wind project, namely the 7 GW “Hollandse Kust” project (“Dutch Coast”):

https://www.offshorewind.biz/2020/04/17/vattenfall-and-tennet-ink-hollandse-kust-zuid-34-grid-deal/

“Vattenfall and TenneT Ink Hollandse Kust Zuid 3&4 Grid Deal”

“Hollandse Kust” will be the next project after the completion of 1.5 GW Borssele I-V, next year:

https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2017/07/07/contracts-signed-for-752-mw-offshore-wind-of-dutch-coast/

DT on Sat, 18th Apr 2020 7:45 am

Just about the time the retirement checks are due in 2050 all of the renewable energy contraptions will have to be replaced/rebuilt. Say goodbye to your retirement dreams.

DT on Sat, 18th Apr 2020 7:50 am

We are talking about the world when it comes to carbon being dumped into the atmosphere. Or perhaps the euro zone is planning a giant dome to cover the continent and having a private atmosphere. Something like was done at Chernobyl. Only on a moon landing scale.

Cloggie on Sat, 18th Apr 2020 7:55 am

These 25 years are contractual guarantees, no serious prediction of real life time.

So far two offshore projects were decommissioned after 23 years or so:

https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2017/05/14/nuon-dismantles-offshore-wind-farm-in-the-netherlands/

https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2017/08/17/worlds-first-offshore-windfarm-vindeby-decommissioned/

Interesting little fact: these wind farms were not decommissioned because they were worn out, but because these 500 kW wind turbines had become technically obsolete in an age of 8 MW wind turbines. Too much trouble to maintain them, just take them down. But the current 12 MW state-of-the-art machines have a good chance to survive economically much longer, because 15-20 MW is the theoretical upper limit of offshore wind anyway.

The Eiffel tower was designed for a couple of years. After 130 years it is still standing and engineers predict it could last for another 300 years.

Here the oldest wind mill in the Netherlands, built before 1440, that is long before America was ever heard off and it will probably survive America (in its present shape). It is still working after 600 years (for tourists):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HwddedQTXc

Solar panels that are 50 years old are still working, they probably will after 100 years.

Many offshore wind turbines could easily survive 50 years or more. Perhaps every now and then one will fall over, so what. Pull it up from the shallow North Sea, bring it to a electric arc furnace…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_arc_furnace

…powered by those wind towers that didn’t fall over and create a new wind tower at 10% of the original energy cost, it took to create the original tower from iron ore from far-away Australia.

DT on Sat, 18th Apr 2020 8:07 am

The Eiffel tower is not a wind turbine, in case you did not notice.

DT on Sat, 18th Apr 2020 8:09 am

If those windmills in the Netherlands are so great why aren’t the engineers building wind turbines the same way? Proven tech. lasts for 100’s of years.

DT on Sat, 18th Apr 2020 8:10 am

https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2020-02-06/wind-turbine-blades

DT on Sat, 18th Apr 2020 8:12 am

https://stopthesethings.com/tag/wind-turbine-lifespan/

Cloggie on Sat, 18th Apr 2020 8:33 am

“The Eiffel tower is not a wind turbine, in case you did not notice.”

No shit, I hadn’t noticed. Seriously, it is a 300 m high structure, subjected to higher forces than a wind turbine tower of 100 m.

“Wind turbine blades can’t be recycled, so they’re piling up in landfills”

They are working on that, first things first, namely get them to produce decent energy.

https://windeurope.org/newsroom/news/blade-recycling-a-top-priority-for-the-wind-industry/

“Circular Economy: Blade recycling is a top priority for the wind industry”

(One possible solution: shredding and mixing in cement)

Touching all these concerns about landfill, makati whined about that too the other day, until I could show that the share of wind turbine blades in landfill is negligible compared to what else ends up in land fills.

“Rusting Monuments to Stupidity: Staggering Cost of Cleaning Up the Wind Industry’s Giant Mess”

Your point? Americans don’t clean up their own mess, OK. Your problem. This is how it is done in Europe:

https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2017/05/14/nuon-dismantles-offshore-wind-farm-in-the-netherlands/

Americans are sloppy and basically don’t give a f*ck.

#OneLegInTheThirdWorld

Nevertheless, I find all that American dissing of renewable energy and embracing of “collapse” amusing, because it is not me but YOU who implicitly are announcing the end of empire. We in Europe do not need to lift a finger, just sit the empire out, all the while sipping whine, eating cheese and get on with the energy transition, the results of which we will later export to North-America, “after the break”.

“Rusting Monuments to Stupidity: Staggering Cost of Cleaning Up the Wind Industry’s Giant Mess”

Is it me or are these wind turbines still standing? “Rusting” they say. Well you need to maintain them, like everything else. How about a lick of paint?

Just kidding. Just continue drilling for $70 shale oil, while we in Eurasia concentrate on 2 cent/kWh solar electricity. Everybody happy.

Cloggie on Sat, 18th Apr 2020 8:37 am

About the longevity of solar panels:

https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2019/02/16/solar-panel-still-working-after-40-years/

The mass solar panel industry is still young but old panels are still around and work remarkable well.

Sissyfuss on Sat, 18th Apr 2020 8:38 am

Antius says “Think gas bag vehicles” and of course, Cloggedknickers jumps into view.

DT on Sat, 18th Apr 2020 8:48 am

OH I see in Europe all the landfill problems have been solved. this is just a stupid lazy American problem. They are (whomever they are) working on that. “One possible solution shredding and mixing in cement.” Oh great more FF based industrial activity as a solution. “Sipping wine and eating cheese” now that is an energy transition we Americans can get on board with. Now tell me how is that euro dome coming along?

DT on Sat, 18th Apr 2020 8:53 am

“The mass solar panel industry is still young but old panels are still around” Unless a hurricane wrecks your plans. http://www.theweatherjunkies.com/single-post/2017/09/28/Puerto-Rican-Solar-Farms-Heavily-Damaged-By-Hurricane-Maria

DT on Sat, 18th Apr 2020 8:58 am

Or Hail damage. https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=solar+panel+hail+damage&id=5234F97ECD735E9F86BED97CDD85F26627F34B2F&FORM=EQNAMI

DT on Sat, 18th Apr 2020 9:05 am

The fun of dealing with snow. https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=rooftop+solar+panels+and+snow&qpvt=Rooftop+solar+panels+and+snow&FORM=IGRE

DT on Sat, 18th Apr 2020 9:09 am

OOPS!!!! https://s.hdnux.com/photos/74/60/56/15928248/5/rawImage.jpg

DT on Sat, 18th Apr 2020 9:11 am

Your wind hard at work. https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=wind+turbine+fail&docid=607999933750775229&mid=4B7D6914949665F9E1674B7D6914949665F9E167&view=detail&FORM=VIRE

Anonymouse on Sat, 18th Apr 2020 9:19 am

In fairness DT, Hurricanes are capable of wrecking just about *any* form of power generation and distribution, not just panels or turbines. In fact, in the amerikan empires homeland, storms with of less intensity than hurricanes, regularly damage and or knock out the ‘conventional’ grid in various palces. In the uS, all it really takes to wreck the grid there are strong winds or perhaps a bit of snow in many instances.

DT on Sat, 18th Apr 2020 9:22 am

The future is here OH Boy! https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=wind+turbine+fail&&view=detail&mid=F45BC16332E765A93D4BF45BC16332E765A93D4B&&FORM=VDRVRV

DT on Sat, 18th Apr 2020 9:24 am

Clean and green renewable energy in the here and now. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RtGl9Os8Ko

DT on Sat, 18th Apr 2020 9:36 am

Agree Anonymouse. Your statement only further casts doubt that humans are capable of transitioning to renewables (aka fossil fuel extenders). We humans have a hard time getting it right with what we have going now. So it stands to reason that adding more complicated tech to a system held together in the current precarious way, to begin with, is asking for disaster at worst and pie in the sky results at best, never to be attained.

Cloggie on Sat, 18th Apr 2020 9:43 am

Fascinating DT, all these one link posts. You want me to google up Toyota Corolla accidents that went deadly? Would that make you stop driving your Toyota?

You would make more of an intellectual impression if you provided us with data of how often these turbines fail terminally, rather than posting juvenile anecdotal pictures of failures. I am aware of a few cases in Europe, but these are irrelevant in the light of tens of thousands already installed turbines, working fine. Nobody worries here in Renewable Central about wind towers falling over or solar panels catching fire or thousands of panels blown of the roof during a stormy night.

Puerto Rico is now the measure of all things eh? We have no extreme weather in Europe, no hurricanes.

Rooftop snow? In the winter the yield of solar panels is low anyway. Can be compensated neatly with wind turbines. I haven’t seen any snow in Holland for years. Climate change thingy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RtGl9Os8Ko

That’s in New Zealand, of all places.

This is how it is done in Holland, offshore wind park Gemini, 600 MW:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QtRfY0VMPw

No malfunction whatsoever for years. Clean and green renewable energy in the here and now.

Cloggie on Sat, 18th Apr 2020 9:52 am

“Think gas bag vehicles” and of course, Cloggedknickers jumps into view.

We have sissy around for the funny-intended one-liners, just like we have auntie Mildred around for the cookies on a birthday party.

Keep up the good work, siss.

DT on Sat, 18th Apr 2020 10:05 am

Cloggie I gave you the failure rate of renewables (aka fossil fuel extenders)as a whole above. Here it is again. From wiki chart 2017, Solar generation 2% of world total, wind 4% biofuels (mostly burning wood) 2%, Hydro 16%= 24% total world electric production. This is only electricity production. Electricity is about 20% of all energy used world wide. The other 80% of energy comes from burning FF. As of 2017 less than 3% of total energy used world wide was from “renewables” aka fossil fuel extenders. 100% “Renewables” by 2050? ROFLMAO, Oh yea lets not forget those moon landings the ol’ we can do it human spirit thing. A total of six landings the last was in 1972. That was about 50 years ago. So comparing moon landings with 100% renewable energy future by 2050? (Nice comparison Cloggie) 0000000000000000000000000000% chance

Antius on Sat, 18th Apr 2020 10:06 am

I tend to agree with DT, though for different reasons. I don’t think snow on solar panels or wind turbines exploding are going to be significant problems. The real problem is power density and efficient use of depleting physical resources.

It takes about 450 tonnes of steel to produce 1MWe (average) of wind electricity. A large modern boiling water reactor, needs about 20te of steel per average MWe. And the reactor will last 80 years instead to 25. When storage is factored in, you are going to need roughly 100 times more steel to produce the same amount of renewable electricity.

My own opinion is that we need to emulate the French nuclear power programme of the 1970s-1990s. Before Macron got hold of it.
Build up domestic supply lines for standardised light water based nuclear systems and build them with large scale economies using a dedicated and established workforce. This needs to be a nationalised solution at least initially, as private industry alone cannot muster all of the resources needed to get it going.

I would propose high conversion ratio boiling water reactors, using pre-stressed concrete pressure vessels.

Cloggie on Sat, 18th Apr 2020 10:09 am

Zero reference to failure rates, only data share renewable energy in the overall energy palette.

You’re a waste of time.

DT on Sat, 18th Apr 2020 10:14 am

I have not yet crashed the Toyota but I have owned it since 1973. It was my cousins who bought it new in 1966. Still going strong, it has a second engine, the first one crapping out at somewhere north of 400 K miles. This thing has got to be the most eco friendly car ever. The carbon footprint at this point is almost non existent.

Antius on Sat, 18th Apr 2020 10:20 am

Hydraulic pipeline capsules are a new twist of the old idea of the canal. The idea is, you load freight into naturally buoyant capsules that are then pumped through a steel or concrete water pipe from location to another.

The advantage of this is very energy efficient freight transport – up to ten times more efficient than rail. The most significant downside is low speed – not much faster than walking speed. It would take about a month to transport cargo from one side of the US to the other in this way. It also needs a lot of scale economy to accrue the energy efficiency benefits.

But it make good use of intermittent wind energy using purely mechanical pumps. And provided the freight can afford to take some time and you have enough of it, this is a very cheap and technically easy way of moving large volumes of material over long distances.

Definitely something we could build and use on a very frugal energy and materials budget.

Of course, I don’t exactly advocate a renewable energy future. I am a tinkering engineer who looks for ways of making systems work with whatever resources I’ve got. This is one way we could make mass goods transport work with very limited amounts of intermittent renewable energy.

DT on Sat, 18th Apr 2020 10:22 am

OK cloggie you do not like reality as it stands in the here and now. Those stats clearly indicate that renewables reaching 100% capacity by 2050, that is in 30 years mind you, cannot happen at the current rate of construction. Think about it, it has taken humanity all these years up to this point in time, today, to get maybe 3% of our total energy usage, and according to you by 2050 humanity will be running on 100% “renewables” all fossil free, to boot. No evidence exists to support such a preposterous claim.

Duncan Idaho on Sat, 18th Apr 2020 10:25 am

Donald Trump is worse than a paper tiger. He’s pathetically weak and hopelessly gutless at a time the country needs a strong leader”

Don’t know if this is true.
“pathetically weak and hopelessly gutless ” is one of his strong points.
It’s the psychopathic lying and actions that seem to hamper him the most.
A aide should just stick a BigMac in his mouth when he opens it, to stop the lies.
Any other suggestions?

DT on Sat, 18th Apr 2020 10:27 am

Antius humans have been building and using canal networks for hundreds if not thousands of years to do just that move large and heavy cargo. To bad we gave most of this type of transport up because it was slow, in favor of FF driven motors.

DT on Sat, 18th Apr 2020 10:32 am

Donald trump is a symptom of a broken system that long ago failed humanity. It is called rapacious multinational corporate capitalism. The owners, about .01% of the population, that own everything, think it is working just fine thank you very much.

The Limits of Clean Energy

Leave a Reply Cancel reply